I Hate Contractions.

[TheeGoatPig]

Yes, I know I have used them from time to time, but too many people rely too heavily on them, and use them frivolously without even thinking about what the actual words contained within mean. I would much rather type out "you are" or "have not". Let us also add truncated words to that list like"reinforcement", "w/", and "req". Most situations don't require a truncated usage of letters, and it reads so much easier when written out in full. Quite often the contractions are formed within my own mind when reading the fully written sentence.

Bleh, I'm just rambling. Ignore if possible

 

[PennLady]

Are you referring to fictional writing here, or this kind of informal correspondence we engage in on the forums? And how is "reinforcement" truncated?

 

[TxRad]

Are you referring to fictional writing here, or this kind of informal correspondence we engage in on the forums? And how is "reinforcement" truncated?

He's referring to architectural drawings.

 

[emap]

Reinforcement is not truncated and is truncated. See this one is a tricky thingy since at one time reinforcement was always explained fully. So you would see reinforcement of soldiers, reinforcement of nurses, so on so forth. Reinforcement was only a stand alone word when you were asking if there were any.

The reply would always be a full explanation of what is reinforced, because while there is reinforcement available, it sometimes was more food.

This all changed with the use of radio on the battlefield. The early radio were not very good so you had to enunciate clearly. Fewest words possible was also a very good idea since you repeated twice as a matter of course and probably had to more often. So it quickly became reinforcement was soldiers, and supplies was everything else.

Supplies has been used for quite a while to mean everything but people and even people on occassion but with radio it is the first time it is used for anything beyond going in to a town or store to buy things.

May or may not be accurate but that is what I remember reading on the early use of radio.

 

[THROBBS]

Just take shallow breaths, Theegoatpig.

 

[TxRad]

Reinforcement is not truncated and is truncated. See this one is a tricky thingy since at one time reinforcement was always explained fully. So you would see reinforcement of soldiers, reinforcement of nurses, so on so forth. Reinforcement was only a stand alone word when you were asking if there were any.

The reply would always be a full explanation of what is reinforced, because while there is reinforcement available, it sometimes was more food.

This all changed with the use of radio on the battlefield. The early radio were not very good so you had to enunciate clearly. Fewest words possible was also a very good idea since you repeated twice as a matter of course and probably had to more often. So it quickly became reinforcement was soldiers, and supplies was everything else.

Supplies has been used for quite a while to mean everything but people and even people on occassion but with radio it is the first time it is used for anything beyond going in to a town or store to buy things.

May or may not be accurate but that is what I remember reading on the early use of radio.

Reinforcement, as in structural. Not as in troops.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SUPPLY VS MATERIEL

The word materiel means the equipment and supplies in military or commercial supply-chain management. So, a forklift truck (which is equipment used in the supply chain) and a can of petrol (which is one of the supplies) would both be classified as materiel. In other words, materiel is the things a military force or a business needs to do its job.

Supplies are disbursed, materiel maybe not.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Most situations don't require a truncated usage of letters, and it reads so much easier when written out in full.

I'm generally not fussed about whether authors truncate, as long as the meaning is clear. But one exception: most people truncate heavily when speaking, so when writing dialogue truncation is usually a good idea.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

But if I do not use contractions in my writings then I sound just like Mr. Data from Star Trek.

 

[desertslave]

Many Penn Dutch speakers have a habit of dropping "to be" in sentences, which drove our New England-born 8th grade English teacher bonkers.

Example: The windshield needs to be washed.
PennDutch: The windshield needs washed.

He tried desperately to cure us of this (and it mostly took in writing form). He would launch into Hamlet's soliloquy whenever one of us dropped those two poor words. Unfortunately, he generally just threw us into fits of laughter, and it became something of a contest to see if we could trip him up.

I'm generally cured, unless I'm talking and very tired. Then all sorts of weird Dutchy stuff leaks out. The look on Sir's face, the first time I asked him to crack the window, was priceless.

 

[sr71plt]

Contractions are, more often than not, the best to use for dialogue (read it aloud to determine if the dialogue is stilted without them). As a literary device, not using contractions in dialogue is used to denote a period piece or a non-English character speaking. In fiction, contractions are appropriate for informal narration too.

If you are writing to be read, it isn't all about your preference--it's even more about the reader's expectations and reading comfort.

 

[Handley_Page]

I feel someone might illustrate this a bit better than my wild imagination.
Truncated in dialogue?
Do the characters speak in truncated speech ?

I think I've missed something important and do not know what!